So, in 1962 it cost $972.00 to buy a GS, not in today's money.... $972.00 at that time. Today that GS is around $2,500.00 to $3,000.00.

Before Photobucket took a dive, I had pictures of a guy selling his Rolex in 2015 for $29,000.00. It had originally been bought for $265.00 at a military PX in 1964.

I love the GS, I am a huge fan, but it is clear that as an investment Rolex wins and wins big. A GS in 1962 would a little more than double and maybe triple your money.A Rolex in 1962 sold for a hundred times the original price.

I have been through the trenches with GS. I have some major gripes, in general I don't find their bracelets are on par with other brands, omega makes killer bracelets, but the technology is unique and the finish work leaves Rolex in the dust.

I am hoping they come out with a thinner movement. Gripes aside, I was looking at a Snowflake the other day at Seiko boutique and the combination of that fuzzy dial and the Zaratsu finish on the hands and indices is literally out of this world, nothing Rolex makes is even in the ballpark.

I couldn't get the pictures off PB because they were not my own, I had copied and saved them. They show on the grid page, but won't allow me to view individually because they are considered 3rd party hosting. I screenshotted the grid then cropped and enlarged to get what I have here, unfortunately they have a checkmark and a menu on them.

So, in 1962 it cost $972.00 to buy a GS, not in today's money.... $972.00 at that time. Today that GS is around $2,500.00 to $3,000.00.

Before Photobucket took a dive, I had pictures of a guy selling his Rolex in 2015 for $29,000.00. It had originally been bought for $265.00 at a military PX in 1964.

I love the GS, I am a huge fan, but it is clear that as an investment Rolex wins and wins big. A GS in 1962 would a little more than double and maybe triple your money.A Rolex in 1962 sold for a hundred times the original price.

Given that I'm a fence sitter in these sort of things there's advantages and disadvantages to each. And sometimes what some consider a disadvantage is actually an advantage from a different perspective.

Rolex as an investment - no argument. But the Seiko is purchased when stocks or gold were obvious alternatives. You can't wear a mutual fund but you can wear gold if so inclined. And even watches that are passable investments are like classic cars - there's some depreciation when purchased new that eventually turns into appreciation like an inverted bell curve.

Prestige = Rolex. But not necessarily exclusivity; they do crank out about a million a year.

Some people seriously don't like being noticed. To those people a Grand Seiko offers a very nice watch that will never once be considered ostentatious. This is where the ubiquitous name works to its favor. If you prefer to have people think you spent a wad on your watch then Grand Seiko probably isn't a good choice.

Technology - definitely GS and it has the side effect of shopping for a used spring drive as safe as being in your mama's arms. Nobody has managed to clone it. Shopping for a used Rolex is a mine field requiring expertise to navigate the shoals lest one spend Rolex type money on a fake.

Finish = GS. Buy a GS and you'll find yourself buying a 20X loupe. The closer you look the more detail becomes apparent.

Sometimes you want a prestige product that can be serviced generations into the future that increases in value. Other times you just want the best finished watch you can get your hands on that can be worn anywhere and will be assumed to be a 300.00 Seiko by 99.9% of the population.

They appeal for different reasons but not necessarily different people.

GS owners may have a minor advantage in that they sometimes have less of their ego tied up in the product. They will cheerfully acknowledge those areas where Rolex has an advantage. Finding a Rolex guy willing to fess up that GS has superior tech and finish is a bit more challenging of a search on average. Strangely they both agree that the GS says Seiko on the dial - one doesn't think it makes for a proper watch while the other either doesn't care or actually prefers it.

Those with both don't understand what the debate is all about. I'm more into GS than Rolex at present but Rolex may catch up. To me there's not much incentive to keep buying GS as they tend to be similar to each other - I can't picture more than a half dozen if I had both the money and time. There's a bazillion versions of Rolex offering multiple specializations to collectors.

On the other hand I would wager that GS never undergoes the benign indignities that a Bamford would inflict on it. That took a different breed of Rolex cat altogether - fortunately very limited in their numbers.

And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle....bobbee

Hawk makes a lot of good points that I agree with. I own both Rolex and Grand Seiko, they both appeal to me for different reasons and I enjoy having both in my collection.

A few points I disagree with. One, the GS is so finely finished and blingy that it actually gets noticed more than most of my other watches. It's only incongnito in name. Two, GS/Seiko fanbois have just as much of their egos tied up into their watches as the biggest Rolex fanbois. Their fixation with Rolex can be ridiculous and just comes off as petty jealousy. Not too mention their holier than thou attitude on being "real" watch guys when compared with the Rolex owners who obvioulsy are just rich douchebags who want to wear their bank accounts on their wrists. And finally, while GS never undergoes the indignities of Bamford, they do a pretty good job of Bamford-ing some of their own designs.

iwasbanned wrote:Hawk makes a lot of good points that I agree with. I own both Rolex and Grand Seiko, they both appeal to me for different reasons and I enjoy having both in my collection.

A few points I disagree with. One, the GS is so finely finished and blingy that it actually gets noticed more than most of my other watches. It's only incongnito in name. Two, GS/Seiko fanbois have just as much of their egos tied up into their watches as the biggest Rolex fanbois. Their fixation with Rolex can be ridiculous and just comes off as petty jealousy. Not too mention their holier than thou attitude on being "real" watch guys when compared with the Rolex owners who obvioulsy are just rich douchebags who want to wear their bank accounts on their wrists. And finally, while GS never undergoes the indignities of Bamford, they do a pretty good job of Bamford-ing some of their own designs.

You might have a point - I almost never have a watch noticed but one of the times was a GS - by a dental hygienist FWIW. But usually the name on the dial puts me in stealth mode. I tend to agree with Tik that the Snowflake is finished to a degree that Rolex doesn't see as necessary but it's not good at retaining value or any other thing that Rolex enjoys an advantage in and the GS has thus far passed unnoticed through the world. The one that did elicit a comment was a GS quartz and the lovely dental lady may have said the same thing had it been a Fossil.

As to whether a GS fanboi suffers from choice-supportive bias that's probably mitigated by owning both. One is unlikely to put down one's own choice routinely.

IRL Rolex will inevitably suffer from having more people buying it for status than GS simply because they are status symbols and that's the downside to being the number one brand in the world. This doesn't mean that all, most or many Rolex owners are buying for status. But there will be far more than buy GS for status simply because GS is a sorry-ass status symbol. Brand awareness means you won't find a GS owner that's unaware of Rolex but you can easily track down multiple Rolex owners that are unaware of GS or Credor. Nothing wrong with that - it's just math. The world at large is different than forums.

As to Bamfording there's Galante but I'm unlikely to drop 9 large on one. Personal taste and all that.

And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle....bobbee

In a direct comparison I did choose. It's been one of the best watch decisions I have made.

I chose between the SD and GS, I don't see the Sub as a player at this level. The finish, movement technology and comfort on the wrist of the GS made it a simple choice. The plan was to keep this watch for the long-haul too, so the entry price of the GS was very attractive.

In discussion with the GS service people in Sydney I was told parts will be available for 25yrs at a minimum.

"If I could put a finger on the moment we genuinely fucked ourselves, it was the moment we decided that data was something you could use words like believe or disbelieve around...

bedlam wrote:In a direct comparison I did choose. It's been one of the best watch decisions I have made.

I chose between the SD and GS, I don't see the Sub as a player at this level. The finish, movement technology and comfort on the wrist of the GS made it a simple choice. The plan was to keep this watch for the long-haul too, so the entry price of the GS was very attractive.

In discussion with the GS service people in Sydney I was told parts will be available for 25yrs at a minimum.

Sorry but your opinion is invalid because you actually use the watches for their intended purpose.